"We just want to dig up any evidence..."
Thursday, December 31, 2020
Tuesday, December 29, 2020
Analysis of Adoptive Parents of Missing Toddlers
Transcription by John
AM: adoptive mom
AD: adoptive dad
Journalist: Ok guys, whenever you're ready.
this is now the opening statement of the interview. 2 toddlers are missing.
What is the mother's priority?
AM: Erm, we just want to thank everybody in the community for all the support we've seen, we've felt so helpless and seeing everybody out here really looking and helping out really means alot.
1. thanks to the community. Context: The case is unresolved; the boys are still missing.
2. She expresses their emotion: feeling "helpless" and what it means to them to receive "everybody out here really looking and helping out..."
She does not express, at this time, concern for what the toddlers are currently experiencing. This is expected from a biological mother or a nurturing caretaker.
Its absence is noted that is consistent with Neglect.
Neglect its the easiest form of child abuse as it takes little or no effort. It can become habitual and young children learn to adapt to it. They may be able to get their own food, including some that will heat or even cook for themselves. This age inappropriate and risky action is often praised by neglectful parents.
Interviewer: So, tell us what happened the night the kids went missing?
Great question
AD: Ok -- AM: oh my God
Here, the use of Deity by the mother is expected as innocent parents may feel hopeless that they call upon God.
The dad now speaks:
AD: It was cold I was going to make a fire, theres a lot of wood in this, this are right here next to our house I opened up that gate I'm throwing wood bringing it inside the house.
His priority includes an indication of neglect: "opened up the gate" is not necessary.
He could have said, "I left the gate open and my boys are now missing..." as a priority, but instead:
1. It was cold
2. "I was going to make a fire" is to tell us his intention; not his action.
3. Unnecessary details found in his priority--- "there's lots of wood right here next to our house"--- the audience (recipients of the statement) do not care where there is wood located, but the subject does.
4. He switches to present tense language: "I opened the gate" (past tense, strong commitment), "I'm throwing wood, bringing it inside the house.."
It is interesting to note that "It was cold" is to state the reason he went into his intention to make a fire and the present tense collecting of wood.
What is he seeking to justify?
Is it leaving the gate open?
Is it something more with location, wood and "throwing"?
My wife's inside she was actually wrapping gifts
"my wife" indicates unity with her.
She must be a good mom because she was wrapping gifts (this was before Christmas)
He compare her action of wrapping gifts ("actually") with something else. What is it?
so we thought it was a good idea that they, are youngest two outside and play with chalk on the back patio.
The audience would not likely believe he is talking about other children who are not introduced yet. The audience is listening (media) because the two toddlers are missing. The emphasis that they are the "youngest" is noted.
Why the need to separate, in his language, the two victims from the other unnamed and unreferenced children?
Do not let them go on the dirt in the backyard keep them close.
We do not know from whom this imperative came, though in context, it may be that he wishes us to believe it came from his wife. Would the adoptive father need to be told this admonition?
Consider that Child Neglect is at play in the language. Otherwise, there is no need for such an admonition.
This need to remind one (who?) to "keep them close" is an unnecessary addition to the language. He does not ascribe the admonition to anyone---we cannot state with certainty that either said it.
Playing with chalk, came in the house saw them there, went in the house came back out I didn't see them there.
Neglect indicated. Should these children end up being kidnapped by a stranger, Neglect is indicated.
"playing with chalk" removes the boys from the sentence. Who was playing with chalk? He does not tell us.
Location:
"playing with chalk" would be outside but then he says "came in the house saw them there" which appears out of sequence.
This has led some analysts to question if something happened to the boys in the house.
If we assume---
The boys are playing with chalk while he is watching them though gathering wood for a fire because it is cold.
He went inside and saw the boys there, and then he went outside and did not see the boys there.
The awkward sense of communication is coming from someone who communicates smoothly in other areas.
This likely did not come from experiential memory.
I immediately went back in asked my wife did you see the boys? She said no they should be outside playing with chalk, I said (inaudible) I didn't see em so I came back outside and I started searching my backyard, I searched the whole thing I realized that I left the gate open and I panicked came inside the house searched the house, me and my wife.
He is outside (in order to go back inside) and asked his wife if she saw the boys.
He then feels it necessary to explain why he came back outside.
Not seeing them originally outside and not finding them inside, he has no reason to explain why he would go outside again.,
Location is very important to him, even as he may be losing his way in the statement.
He next said he "searched the whole thing"--- is this a very large lot that would warrant such a statement, as in acres? If not, the subject is in need of portraying himself as a "good guy", suggesting to the contrary.
The gate re-enters his language.
This is a very strong indicator (unnecessary and repetitive) of Child Neglect, regardless of how this comes out.
We not only have the question of whether he is attempting to build an alibi, (open gate, accidental, open gate, let in a kidnapper, etc) but we also wonder if he, himself, took the boys through this gate. It is not known at this point.
Once that.. hadn't pan out I got in the van I looked down the street
he is in the van at this point of his statement. "Looked" may be driven, but he did not state it to be so.
both directions
He wants his audience to know he was thorough in searching, similar to checking his yard.
This is also a need to portray himself in the best possible light. Would anyone expect a father or caretaker of missing toddlers to look in only one direction?
He is very concerned with his appearance.
Why?
Is it due to past guilty behavior?
Neglect?
Or is it something far more serious?
it was getting dark getting cold
for whom?
How might the dark and cold impact him (he earlier reported it was cold and he had to go to the wooded area for firewood) and now returns to the theme of cold.
Here is where we expect him to tell us how the cold and the darkness may be impacting his sons. It is the natural response of empathy.
and I got in the van
He was in the van earlier and now he got in the van
and hit a bunch of corners,
this may be a common expression or--- he drove erratically and hit side walk corners, or...
it is something that slipped into his language due to an earlier activity.
It is not known. We do not, however, like to hear the language of physicality in such a setting.
I went down this street I turned my light on
Was this the headlights from the van or did he get out and get a flashlight, which would explain the second entrance into the van?
I searched I searched, called their names talked to a gentleman on the other side over there and he didn't see (inaudible) so then I came home I told my wife you need to call the cops. I, it's getting dark and I need help (inaudible) so I called the cops the cops came.
The 911 emergency call would be of value to the analysis
The need to portray himself in a positive manner continues.
First thing they did was tell us to stay in the house so that they can get holds of us
He attributes this to the Police. We would generally consider the cell phone the way Police can get a hold of him and his wife, but he reports this as the "first thing" they did.
It is very likely that the responding officers had their doubts about the parents.
Next, he attributes to the police the body posture and restriction---
and they had us just sitting there and we want to keep searching. But everybody came out in droves and I wanted to thank you guys , that night when we couldn't go outside.
If he is anxious to get outside and search, "sitting" would enter his language as an increase of his tension. This also goes for the addition of "we couldn't go outside."
Note that this is before and after his "thank you" to the recipients (media, public), though the boys are not yet found.
We should consider that the subject has a need to ingratiation himself, psychologically, to the audience, while portraying himself in a positive light.
That they "couldn't" go outside----- was this a request by police or was it given in a more forceful manner?
AM: The cops told us the best are out here...
AD..The best are out here searching and we appreciate it and nobody ever could tell, could never talk to anybody (Inaudible)
He, again, expresses his appreciation to the searchers, though they have not found his sons.
Was he then saying that the police told them not to talk to anyone?
AM: We just want to thank everybody...
for what? Not finding the boys?
AD: We really thank you guys..
Ingratiation can be appropriate (imagine a car salesman being rude to you before trying to close a deal? Imagine a journalist taking a hostile stance but then expecting answers?)
The need to ingratiate themselves to the public via media is noted.
AM: Please if anybody has seen them, please call..let somebody know.
AD: If if, call the cops..call.. telephone (Inaudible) city Police department. Call them and let know what you've seen if you see anything. Our boys, they, they are going to be ...Rambunctious, ok, they are going to be here in this area and I really would like to go in the houses , but it's not because I want to invade peoples privacy, I just want to know if...
To describe the toddlers as "rambunctious" while they went missing in the cold and dark is not a positive linguistic disposition. This is a signal of guilt where blame is subtly shifted to the victims.
They would not be "rambunctious" but cold, hungry and terrified.
AM: Make sure.
AD: Make sure thats it. Because.
Adoptive Dad nods towards the journalist and says "go ahead i'm sorry, you got any questions."
Journalist: Oh no your good, was just gunna say this is the first time we're hearing from you guys and i can't imagine..what you're going through i can't evn fathom it. ermm..For you guys, for people who are thinking, ahh, that there is some kind of foul play involved ermm you know we just spoke to the biological mother she said she had a conversation with you guys, ermm, and that she thinks theres some kind of foul play involved, she think you guys did something. What your response to that?
AD: That's understandable,
He is accused of foul play and finds it "understandable."
I would think the same thing. If we can find our our babies guess what thats enough and that's all I want is to find our babies that's it.
And I talked to her this morning and I really wanted to tell her that I'm completely sorry because we were entrusted with the children, and it came to us and it became our children,
"it" is likely the case, which would include a lengthy process from visitation to possible court action.
we named them and they they are our children, so, we want em back. So please if, get back on your, what you guys are doing, we we should be able to get a hold of somebody but they took all of our tech,
Is "tech" more than just phones?
they want to, I guess rule us out which would make sense in the investigation. So, that's pretty much it.
Journalist: Have you guys, erm, you talked to the police all last night?
AM: Yeah
Journalist: Erm. What, so you guys wilfully gave them you technology?
better is: what did you give them?
AD: Yes.
Journalist: The car?
AD: Yes.
Journalist: Did they get, how did they get a search warrant? Did you guys..
AD: I, I don't see why they got one, but they got one, we would've let them take anything, we would've tell them take everything, we got em come and search with us, we we asked them come do that.
The need to portray himself and his wife as diligent, helpful and cooperative often belies the opposite.
Journalist: What did they take?
AD: Just tech..and that's it. Like our phones.
AM: We need to be out here. Err, again, we were cold, upset, told to stay put, they have more questions.
Literally talk with us the whole time in there.
We now may understand that this was more than just a request, but a directive from police.
(inaudible)
AD: They had us sitting down, (inaudible) sitting down.
This is in response to "they have more questions"
(Inaudible)
Journalist: What time did you guys notice the kids were missing? And at what time were they reported missing to the Police?
AD: It's about, I believe, I think it was about 4:30..5ish. Thats when everything played out.
Journalist: And then when did you guys call the Police to report them missing?
AM: Actually we searched a little bit around here, it was dark so we were definitely, where we got worried.
The need to portray the emotions is noted. The need to emphasize ("definitely") the emotions heightens the concern that the couple may be artificially editing into their statements what emotions one would expect to be experienced. We also did not hear what emotions the toddlers would be presently experiencing.
Analysis Conclusion:
Child Neglect is indicated in the language. Wherever neglect is indicated, substance abuse should be explored.
The adoptive father should be considered a suspect and administered a polygraph.
The adoptive mother also indicates neglect and should be considered a suspect, though it may be after the fact. She should be administer a polygraph.
The polygraphs must be employed with their own language; not the language of the examiner.
The lack of concern for the victims is placed against concern for themselves.
The father does not rebuke the bio mom's allegation of foul play, but allows it to stand.
Neglect comes in many forms and can lead to outright physical abuse.
Neglect becomes a norm and the parent (s) who neglects can become irritated when the child(ren) indicate a need to which the parent does not wish to respond. This can lead to unplanned homicide---one losing one's temper.
Describing the boys as "rambunctious" in the context of them missing, particularly in the cold and dark, is an example of subtle victim blaming.
In the inherent neglect associated with drugs, the user/seller risks introducing violence, retaliation and kidnapping for profit, into the lives of the children.
This short interview raised suspicion upon the adoptive parents, rather than give helpful information into what may have happened to the boys.
It is unknown if the guilt found in this interview is due solely to neglect, or it is due to their own criminal activity leading to the disappearance of the boys and possible cover up.
If you wish to study deception detection, or to host a seminar for police, military, or business, see HyattAnalysis.com
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
Deception Detection Training Opportunity 2021
For those who wish to enroll in our Complete Statement Analysis Course, please note our price increase is for 1 January, 2021.
Those who enroll before this date will be honored at last year's tuition cost @1200 US$ with 12 months of e support.
Wednesday, November 25, 2020
December 2020 Training
December 2020 Schedule
Due to holidays, Team Analysis Training is
Tuesday Dec. 15th. 9am EST
Thursday Dec. 17th. 12noon EST
Please check your subscription for 2021.
Monday, October 5, 2020
The Disappearance of Missing Teen, Bernadette Walker
The Disappearance of Missing Teen, Bernadette Walker
Guest Submission by Paul Maillardet
Bernadette, 17, from Millfield in Peterborough in England, was reported missing by her parents on 21st July 2020. She has not been seen or heard from since.
Her parents, Sarah Walker, 37, and Scott Walker, 50, said Bernadette ran away from them on July 18th. They became concerned and reported her missing three days later.
In a turn of events, on the 16th September both Sarah and Scott Walker were charged with their daughter’s murder at Peterborough Crown Court, Cambridgeshire. Both parents did not enter a plea at the hearing. They will stand trial in March 2021.
Bernadette’s body has not been found at the time of this article.
So, did Sarah and Scott Walker murder their daughter? Is their daughter simply missing as they say, and they are innocent?
The Walkers made three media statements prior to their arrest – by analysing these media statements and calls for Bernadette, can we shine more light on this case?
Whilst they may have been charged by the police, they are innocent until proven guilty. In Statement Analysis, we always work from the basis the subject is innocent, their words will guide us and signal if there may be information to the contrary.
Let’s take a look together and see….
Media Plea 1
“We need to make it clear that she's not in any trouble, we're all worried and want to know that she's safe."
The first thing we note is they do not speak to Bernadette directly, and do not use her name.
Instead their language is directed to us, the audience. Rather than immediately to call to their daughter to come back home, or to call-out to anyone that she may be with or may have her, they have a need to persuade us that Bernadette is “not in any trouble”.
We have to ask why Bernadette would be in trouble? It is unnecessary for them to tell us, and may well signal that the last time they spoke to Bernadette something did indeed happen, and she was in trouble with them. Bernadette would not be in any ‘trouble’ if they have knowledge she is dead, which could lead to such an assertion appearing in their language.
Their “need to make it clear” tells us that they feel they have to let us know that they are good parents, and are not responsible in any way for Bernadette being missing. This tells us they are very aware of their audience, and their language signals they may feel under scrutiny.
They go on to say that they “…want to know that she’s safe.” – note that they have not said they want her back – just to know she is ‘safe’. They do not tell us they want Bernadette back home, or her back ‘safe and well’.
Note that they do not use Bernadette’s name – the omission of names in a statement can often signify that the subject/s wish to psychologically distance themselves from the victim. They may not be able to bring themselves to say the victim’s name if they still harbour anger, regret or remorse or guilty knowledge. Killers can often continue to harbour anger towards their victims as they will feel that the victim is responsible for putting them in the position they face, and this can leak into their language. Let us keep track and see if this becomes a common feature or not.
She added: "I believe the police are doing their job, but as a parent I need more. I'm desperate for my daughter to be found. When will they up the risk to high instead of medium?"
‘We’ has now become ‘I’ and their unity before is now gone. Here we are told she ‘believes’ the police are doing their job’. She does not tell us she has been in touch or engaged with the police.
“…but as a parent I need more.” This is concerning – her daughter is missing, yet she does not describe herself ‘as Bernadette’s ‘mother’. She remains a parent as she has other children, but she distances herself from Bernadette yet again maternally and emotionally. She does not make it clear what needing more may be.
“I’m desperate for my daughter to be found” – She does not say she wants her daughter back home, but ‘to be found’.
Her language does not tell us that she wants her back with her - that she wants her home back with her and the family – that she wants her ‘safe and well’. Whilst her language here seems sincere, the use of “found” is passive. We would leave the possibility open that this may be ‘Leakage’ in her language in that she may know her daughter is dead, that she won’t be returning home, but that she will only be found – we find that this often reveals itself in the language of those that are guilty or have guilty knowledge.
Note we are still waiting for the Bernadette’s name to be used – she is ‘my daughter’.
Mum Sarah Walker has asked the public to help her in distributing posters, hoping that if she gets them into every area of the city, Bernadette will be found and will return home.
Sarah said: "We have had no contact with her since 1am on July 20, when she texted me to say she would be home soon. None of her friends have heard from her and she's not accessed social media."
“We have had no contact with her…” – We look at her choice of words here, she does not say ‘We have not heard from Bernadette…’, but passively tells us they have not heard from her. The urgency and emotion of finding their missing daughter is not present. There is nothing in her language to say they have been trying to make contact with her, or that they have spoken to any of her friends. Bernadette’s name is still not being used by the mother.
The word ‘with’ in Statement Analysis signals distancing, in this case her mother distances herself through her language from any contact with ‘her’.
She added: "I can't eat or sleep properly. I miss and love my eldest princess so much, she's missing out on her baby sister, who has learned to smile and coo already. I have to think that she is hiding at one of her friend's homes, worried about coming home now that the police will want to speak to her, I can't think of any alternative scenarios, I just can't.
We would understand that parents of a missing child would not eat or sleep properly. However, instead of conveying her concern for Bernadette - where she may be, if she has eaten, if she may be in danger – her focus is on Self and to convey that she is worried in what we would consider as being almost ‘scripted’ language.
“…she’s missing out on her baby sister…” – In Statement Analysis we often find the perpetrator of a crime will find subtle ways of blaming their victim after the fact, as they seek to justify their actions or indirectly blame the victim for putting them in the situation they are in. Here, whilst we can listen to the words in the literal sense, in our analysis this can be a sign of subtle blaming of Bernadette – whose name she still can’t bring herself to say.
“I have to think that she is hiding at one of her friend’s homes…” – Why has she not been instrumental in contacting and searching all of Bernadette’s friends’ homes? Again, this speaks to a weak assertion and lack of urgency and involvement – we would ask why?
“…worried about coming home…” – the mother contradicts her previous statement in which she told us that she needed to make it clear that Bernadette wasn’t in trouble.
“…now that the police would want to speak to her.” – Earlier she tells us Bernadette wasn’t in trouble but has a need to drop-in that the police would want to speak to her.
This is significant – rather than her statement being a warm and reassuring call for her daughter, instead we the audience are told why Bernadette would not come home. She’s ‘not in trouble’, but she may be worried about coming home, and the police will be waiting to speak to her if she does. The mother has a need to convey the reasons her daughter won’t be coming home.
“I just can’t think of any alternative scenarios, I just can’t” – In analysis, the word ‘just’ means that the person is comparing one thing with another. In this case she combines this by telling us in the negative what can’t have happened, rather than what she thinks may have happened, and her repetition of the word ‘just’ makes it even more sensitive. We would see this as a potential flag that she can think of alternative scenarios, and there is a scenario which is sensitive to her which could be from guilty knowledge.
"I know my baby girl wouldn't be out in the open. She's scared of being out in the dark alone, that's what makes me think she's at a friend's house. I just wish someone would just say she's here and she's safe. I want to cuddle her, but right now I'd accept that she's safe and well."
“I know my baby girl wouldn't be out in the open.” – How can the mother know with certainty she would not be in the open – this could be leakage once again if she knows that she is in fact concealed.
‘I just wish someone would just say she’s here and she’s safe’ – She does not say ‘there’ and she’s safe. This could suggest that she knows Bernadette is close to her ‘here’, perhaps close enough she could reach-out and cuddle her, but she knows she cannot.
September 10th Statement
Her mum Sarah Walker shared the news on social media, she wrote:
"Please keep sharing. The police have now put Bernadette Walker as a high-risk missing person due to the amount of time she has been missing. “
"Bernadette if you can see this, please let us know that you are safe. You can set up a new Facebook or Instagram darling and message us, that way you can let us know that you're safe without giving away your location."
Finally her mother uses her name…but not in a warm-way. Instead she uses her full-name, with extreme distancing language from Bernadette. She does not reference her as ‘my daughter’ and even further distances herself by referencing her as a missing ‘person’. With the Rule of Economy, she could have finished at ‘high risk.’, but instead disassociates herself further by using the gender-neutral term ‘person’. This is not what we would expect from the mother.
In her final sentences, for the first time she uses much of the language missing from her previous appeals. She is likely acutely aware of her audience and this is very scripted.
She does not call for Bernadette to come back home, just to message them to let them know she is safe. The urgency remains absent – a call would be an immediate plea to their daughter for her to make contact, or to any person who may have her or know where she may be. Instead Bernadette is guided by the mother to set-up new social media accounts in a convoluted means to avoid detection – why would her mother wish to highlight any means of her being located and conveying this?
· The mother has the opportunity to use Bernadette’s name 19 times but doesn’t do so. This is extreme distancing linguistically from her daughter. This could signal her need to disassociate her from Bernadette if she has knowledge or involvement in her disappearance, and also possibly continued anger towards Bernadette if she blames her for anything that may have happened.
· The language does not convey the natural urgency and emotion by a parent of a missing daughter.
Conclusion:
Conclusion: Deception indicated via missing information.
The statements are linguistically negative towards Bernadette, which given the circumstances is not what we would expect to find, looking at expected vs unexpected.
Her language indicates that she is withholding information.